Your hit piece on Susan only encourages we Southerns. More flags will go up.

From my upcoming book on Captain Corker

Captain Corker headed a group of the boys to visit the “Crater”**. This “spot presented special interest to the survivors of the Third as they had helped to drive the enemy back from the “Mine” on the terrible day of the “Blow up,” and in the charge lost their intrepid ensign. Mayor Gregory (Petersburg, Va.) took the old battle flag of the Veterans and planted it amidst wild cheers upon the ramparts at the “Crater” and again it fluttered in the wind where more than eleven years before it had blazed defiantly in the face of the foe and was followed into “the jaws of death, into the mouth of hell” as cannon “bellowed and thundered.”

Good luck, kiddies.

The
‘Take ‘Em Down Nola’ group, which has aligned itself with the Black
Lives Matter movement, is now saying publicly they plan to tear down New
Orleans’ most iconic monument in the city.

During a protest outside of New Orleans City Hall, a group of Take
‘Em Down Nola, which has made threats against the New Orleans Police
Department (NOPD) and Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s administration in the past,
said police will have to step aside this weekend as they plan to
physically tear down the equestrian Andrew Jackson monument in the
French Quarter.

“So you plan on tearing down the Andrew Jackson monument?” one reporter asked the spokesman of Take ‘Em Down Nola.

“Yes,” the spokesman responded.

When asked about how sure Take ‘Em Down Nola was on the threats of
ripping the statue down, the spokesman said “That’s not a threat, that’s
a promise.”

“We understand that the city and the police department are going to
be out there to try and prevent us [from tearing down the monument], but
we’re asking them to step aside and let us do what is our civic duty,”
the spokesman said.

Over the last few decades, I doubt that any American political
organization has received greater negative attention in our national
news and entertainment media than the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK. For
example, although white activist David Duke left that group over 35
years ago, the media still often identifies him as one of its former
leaders, and partly as a consequence Duke’s support for Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign has regularly been treated as headline news.

Such massive coverage may be objectively demonstrated. Googling
“KKK” yields over 72 million results, considerably more than the joint
total for “Communist” and “Communists,” and well over twice what you get
for “Communism.” Such prominence seems rather excessive, given that
throughout most of the 20th century, Communism controlled some one-third
of the world’s population, and the resulting political conflict
periodically threatened to unleash global thermonuclear war. Even
today, a self-described Communist Party governs China, a nation 1.4
billion strong, which by some measures has now passed the U.S. to become
the world’s largest economy.

Meanwhile, the last time the KKK held any
significant political power was almost 100 years ago, during its
Midwestern heyday of the 1920s.

What, precisely, is the US military for, and what, precisely, can it
do? In practical terms, how powerful is it? On paper, it is formidable,
huge, with carrier battle groups, advanced technology, remarkable
submarines, satellites, and so on. What does this translate to?

Military power does not exist independently, but only in relation to
specific circumstances.

Comparing technical specifications of the T-14
to those of the M1A2, or Su-34 to F-15, or numbers of this to numbers of
that, is an interesting intellectual exercise. It means little without
reference to specific circumstances.

For example, America is vastly superior militarily to North Korea in
every category of arms–but the North has nuclear bombs. It can’t deliver
them to the US, but probably can to Seoul. Even without nuclear
weapons, it has a large army and large numbers of artillery tubes within
range of Seoul. It has an unpredictable government. As Gordon Liddy
said, if your responses to provocation are wildly out of proportion to
those provocations, and unpredictable, nobody will provoke you.

This week the Virginia Flaggers celebrate
their five-year anniversary. You may never have heard of this
organization, but if you have traveled Virginia’s highways over the past
few years you certainly have seen their handiwork. During this time the
Flaggers have raised large Confederate battle flags along I-95, I-81,
and I-64. In July 2015 the group raised a 30-by-50 foot flag near
Danville, Virginia along the I-29 bypass. These flag raisings have been
carried out in response to the steps taken by local governments, along
with public and private institutions, to remove or re-locate Confederate
iconography.

The organization
has enjoyed steady coverage by local media outlets over the last five
years, but few reporters have looked closely at Flagger membership or
the individuals and organizations with which it has found common cause.
Some of these individuals are directly connected with White Nationalist
groups such as the League of the South, which openly promote white
supremacy. Such a close association blurs the lines between legitimate
concerns for the preservation of history and heritage and the racial
politics of the present.

The 110,000 refugees the Obama administration plans to incorporate into America
over the coming year shouldn’t expect to set up roots in Texas. The
state, which saw an inflow of some 7,000 refugees over the last 12
months, has announced plans to sever its participation in the Obama
administration’s refugee program, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The Washington Free Beacon explains that the reason has to do with a lack of safeguards:
“Texas officials drafted a plan that would require federal national
security officials to provide assurances that none of the individuals
being resettled pose a terror threat. The administration has declined to
approve this plan.”

Three members of the Libyan parliament
representing tribes that were brutally attacked by Islamic militia both
during and after the coup that ousted Moammar Gadhafi charge Hillary
Clinton is the “Butcher of Libya.”

The three lawmakers spoke to WND from Libya in a video conference call.

“Libyans accuse that Hillary and her group are behind the terrorist
groups in Libya,” said Jaballah Al-Shibani of the now-homeless Tawergha
tribe.

He was joined on the call by Saleh Fhema of Moammar Gadhafi’s
hometown of Sirte and Hassan Zarga, a member of the Hassuni tribe in
central Libya.

“Hillary is behind all the terrorist groups controlling Libya,”
Shibani said. “Hillary is behind Ansar al-Sharia, behind the militia in
Misurata who destroyed a great part of Libya and displaced 2 million
people from their lands because they were accused of being loyal to
Gadhafi.

Peter Grant, formerly a soldier in South Africa, knows whereof he
speaks. I suggest it would behoove most Americans to heed his advice
these days.

There are some important lessons to be learned. Firstly, a vehicle
isn't going to help when the streets are clogged. You can't drive over
dozens of protestors. If nothing else, their bodies will immobilize
your vehicle, just as surely as if it became high-centered over a bump.
What's more, as soon as you're forced to slow down or stop, you're
going to get dragged from your vehicle by angry rioters. That may not
be survivable. Much rather use your vehicle to avoid getting into that
mess in the first place . . . but you may not have a choice. You may
turn a corner in a city center to find the mob coming to meet you, with
no time or space to avoid them. If you're on an interstate highway, the
on- and off-ramps may be blocked by rioters and/or vehicles with
nowhere to go, leaving you stranded with a mob coming towards you,
looting every vehicle they pass. This is what I-85 looked like in
Charlotte on Tuesday evening.

A couple of days ago, I received some news that ended up *shaking me to
my very core. After a great deal of consideration, I have decided to
close the doors of the Sipsey Street Irregulars. Effective immediately,
this blog not be updated or monitored. I know this quite sudden, but I
know you guys will keep on going just fine without it.

WSOC reporter Joe Bruno tweeted this photo late yesterday which was
taken at the scene of Keith Scott's shooting in Charlotte Tuesday
afternoon. As usual in these circumstances, the entire protest and
subsequent riots were built on a false narrative and media stupid fuel.
CNN got what it wanted.

CMPD sources confirm this photo I obtained of the shooting aftermath shows the weapon Keith Scott was holding.

Sunday at the Men’s Day program hosted at Union Temple
Baptist Church in Washington, DC, Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis
Farrakhan said to President Barack Obama, “Your people are suffering and
dying in the streets,” of Chicago, so “you failed to do what should
have been done.”
Farrakhan continued by saying it is time to let Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump do “what he wants to because he is not
destroying your legacy.”

Donald Trump said Thursday that the NYPD’s “stop and frisk” policing techniques worked in New York City and that Chicago should implement them.

“Stop and frisk worked. We had tremendous shootings, numbers of shootings,” Mr. Trump said on “Fox and Friends.” “Now, Chicago is really out of control.”

The GOP presidential nominee said there have been 3,000 shootings so far this year in Chicago.

“Obviously, you can’t let the system go the way it’s going,” Mr. Trump said. “But I suggested stop and frisk, and some people think that’s a great idea and some people probably don’t like it.”

“But
when you have 3,000 people shot and so many people dying, I mean it’s
worse than some of the places we’re hearing about like Afghanistan, you
know — the war-torn nations. I mean, it’s more dangerous,” he said.

“I think Chicago
needs stop and frisk … people can criticize me for that or people can
say whatever they want,” he said. “But you have to do something. It
can’t continue the way it’s going.”

Predictably, the anarchy of "Black Lives Matter" has invaded Charlotte, as rioters have now torn up the city and its residents for two nights, all in response to the shooting of an armed thug by a black police officer. I strongly advise any concealed handgun permit-holder who cannot avoid the city to carry a firearm at all times. It is precisely for this sort of scenario that GRNC not only shepherded passage of our concealed carry law, but sued to strike down our State of Emergency law, under which citizens were previously prohibited from carrying firearms outside the home during declared states of emergency.

Bateman v. Perdue: Concealed carry during emergencies

As you may recall, Grass Roots North Carolina was a plaintiff in Bateman v. Perdue, when we sued Governor Beverly Perdue over the State of Emergency gun ban, arguing that the ban constituted an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. We did so after the town of King, NC posted the entire town against firearms in advance of a pending snowstorm, and after Gov. Perdue declared a statewide State of Emergency, in response to an advancing hurricane, on the opening day of dove season, making criminals of thousands of dove hunters. GRNC and other plaintiffs won the lawsuit, and the law was struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Repealing the State of Emergency gun ban

The following year, GRNC lobbied for repeal of the now-unconstitutional law, only to find resistance from Republican leaders who wanted to replace the law with yet another (probably unconstitutional) gun ban. Thanks to the tens of thousands of contacts you provided to legislators, GRNC prevailed and the State of Emergency gun ban was entirely repealed.

Under Castle Doctrine, citizens may respond with deadly force

GRNC also notes that any attempt by rioters to illegally enter a motor vehicle occupied by a law-abiding citizen would likely invoke our Castle Doctrine law, under which forceful and unlawful entry into your occupied home, workplace or motor vehicle creates a rebuttable legal presumption that you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm – the legal standard under which a citizen may respond with deadly force. GRNC shepherded the passage of Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground in 2011.

In sum, GRNC strongly encourages concealed handgun permit-holders to carry firearms at all times while transiting apparently lawless areas within Mecklenburg County, and we encourage them to help GRNC continue to expand laws allowing lawful citizens to protect their families by donating to the organization at http://www.grnc.org/join-grnc/contribute

The late 1970s represented the heyday of popular Southern
music. Southern rock and “outlaw country” dominated the airwaves. It was
chic to say “ya’ll,” even in Boston, and with the election of Jimmy
Carter, it really seemed the “South was gonna’ do it again.”

It wouldn’t last. During an interview at Capricorn Studios in Macon,
GA one afternoon, Charlie Daniels spit into his cup and said it wouldn’t
mean anything in a few years. He was right. In less than a decade, the
South had once again become the punching bag for everything that ailed
the United States, the backwards other in American politics. Her people
were taken for granted by the political class. They could be counted on
to vote, but promises were easily broken. By the 1990s, the onslaught
against her symbols began in earnest. Southerners had much to defend,
but they had lost their voice.

About 12,000 North Carolinians lost their lives in World War II. If we
project the loss of men in the Confederate War against the larger
population of World War II, it would require 300,000 North Carolina
deaths to equal the State’s loss of men in the 1860s.

****How Should 21st Century Americans Think about the War for Southern Independence? ****

We human beings are peculiar creatures, half angel and half animal, as someone has said.

Alone among creatures we have a consciousness of ourselves, of our
situation, and of our movement through time. We have language, and by
symbols can communicate knowledge to one another and across generations.

We can learn something about humans from the Divine Revelations in
the Bible. We can also learn something by scientific examination of our
physical selves. But most of what we know about human beings is in our
knowledge of the past. As a philosopher puts it: we must live forward
but we can only think backward. I am, of course, making a plea for the
importance of history, or to be more exact, historical memory, something
that is undergoing catastrophic destruction today in the United States.

People without knowledge of their past would be scarcely human. What
makes us human is the culture we inherit. It has been truly said that we
are what we remember. Let me emphasise: What we remember determines
what we are. What we take from the past is crucial to our identity. And
it follows, as Dr. Samuel Johnson said, that there is hardly any worse
crime against humanity than to falsify its records.

Every society of any worth has revered those who preceded. Romans, in
their period of greatest freedom and achievement, kept their ancestors
by the fireside as minor gods. The Greeks at their highest point thrived
in a belief in a Golden Age of Heroes that preceded their own lesser
times. It is right that we of the Sons of Confederate Veterans honour
our forebears because they are ours— but not only because they are
ours..

We sons of Confederate soldiers are especially fortunate in our
forefathers. They not only won a place in the hearts of us, their
descendants. They also won the lasting admiration of every one in the
civilized world who values courage, skill, sacrifice, and an indomitable
spirit in defense of freedom.

That is why our battle-flag, which is
being suppressed in these United States, appeared spontaneously at the
fall of the Berlin Wall and among peoples celebrating their liberation
from the Soviet Empire.

Our forefathers are admired by the world to a degree seldom granted
to lost causes. I find that thoughtful Europeans speak respectfully of
the Confederacy, as did Winston Churchill. Foreigners have a great
advantage in judging the right and wrong of the War between the States.
They do not start out with the automatic assumption that all the good is
on one side and all the bad on the other.

Lord Acton, an English historian who published many deeply-researched
volumes on the history of liberty, wrote to General Lee in 1866. The
defeat at Appomattox, Acton said, was a blow to the entire civilized
world because it had reversed the progress of humanity toward
constitutional liberty. And Lee replied: “All the South has ever desired
was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be
preserved and that the government, as originally organized, should be
administered in purity and truth.”

General James Johnston Pettigrew, on his way here to Gettysburg with
the Army of Northern Virginia in the spring of 1863, wrote of the
Confederacy: “Our reputation, next to the Greeks, will be the most
heroic of nations.” What this brilliant and learned man, who lost his
life in the campaign, meant was, that in the long perspective of
history, the action most exemplary of heroism was the stand of the small
Greek city-states against the mighty Persian empire in the 5th century
B.C. Next to that, most worthy of admiration in the long perspective of
history, would be the outnumbered soldiers and people of the South in
their resistance to another giant invading power. The world has for a
long time conceded a measure of truth to Pettigrew’s prediction. If not
in second place, our Confederate fathers stand very high in the history
of heroism in a noble cause.

People without a past describes an ever increasing part of the
American population. Thanks to the government, it is projected that in a
very few years a majority of inhabitants of the U.S. will be post-1965
immigrants and their descendants. People with no inherited connection to
the American past— to the Revolution, or the winning of the frontier,
or even to the sacrifices of World War II.

Along with this, there is a
campaign going on to wipe out the historical memory of Americans and
replace it with a made-up history that is suitable for a multicultural
empire. If we Sons do our duty, I can foresee a time when Confederate
heritage will be the only American heritage left.

My interest in this question became intense during the controversy
over the battle flag on the South Carolina capitol dome. During that
controversy, a press conference and television appearance was
orchestrated by spokespersons for some 90 professional historians in the
state. Here is what they said:

the War of 1861–1865 was about slavery
and nothing but slavery, the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and
treason, and that is not just their opinion, they declared, but rather
an unquestionable truth established by unanimous experts.

There are a hundred different things wrong with this statement. It
is a misuse of history to reduce such a large and complex event as The
War to such simplistic terms. Historical interpretations change over
time and in other generations the prevailing interpretation of the War
was very different.

Furthermore, so-called expert opinion cannot settle
questions of value and meaning in human experience, which must always
remain open for further understanding.

And what do we mean when we say a war is “about” something? Was the
conflict not also “about” economic interests, as was believed by a
former generation of historians much more learned than these, or
cultural conflict, or constitutional questions, or issues of invasion
and defense?

Still further, the opinion so declared was not all that expert. Very
few of the noble 90 signers of the statement have any real fundamental
knowledge of The War period. Most of their expertise was pretty remote,
some not even in American history. Some of them had only been in South
Carolina a short time—coming from weird places like Burma or California.
They were expressing a party line, identifying with a view that they
have been told that all wise and good people adhere to. This was not an
informed historical judgment but a political fashion statement. When you
hear that all experts agree about something, you know a party line is
being enforced, because there is always room for difference of opinion
where people are actually thinking. These self-styled experts were
telling South Carolinians that we are a stupid, deluded people, that our
historical memory is false, our ancestors were despicable, and we
should be instructed by better and wiser people like themselves. Our
flag and our monuments are nothing but supports for a lie and they
should be and soon will be done away with.

This is the view of Confederate history that dominates academics
today. We are being expunged from history. We are to have no part in the
story of America except one little dark corner labeled slavery and
treason. When SC ETV presented a program on the siege of Charleston, it
was not told from the viewpoint of the people of South Carolina
heroically dealing with invasion but from the viewpoint of the invader.
South Carolinians are merely a problem the good invader is eradicating.
The recent History Channel production on Sherman’s March was from the
same perspective.

What those historians are invoking is the current doctrine of “the
Lost Cause Myth,” which claims to explain that everything favourable
that anyone believes about the Confederacy is false manufactured
propaganda. According to this rendering, your and my ancestors were evil
people who tried to destroy the best country on earth to preserve
slavery. Not only were they evil, but they were weak and stupid.

They
made a pathetic effort that was inevitably defeated. Then after the war,
our evil ancestors, it is claimed, made up a mythology about a
supposedly honourable and heroic Lost Cause which never really existed.
In other words they covered up their bad deeds and failure with a pack
of lies.

Remember that this anti-South historical onslaught is something
recent. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and Carter did not mind being
photographed with our battle flag and expressing great admiration for
Robert E. Lee.

These people who want to trash our heritage display a familiar
pattern—that of the conqueror wiping out the identity of the conquered.
They want to substitute their political agenda for our real and true
heritage. We, indeed all Americans, hunger for bread and they give us a
stone. They replace our historical memory with ideology.

This fashionable interpretation among academic historians today is
fully laid out in a Gallagher and Nolan book called “The Lost Cause Myth
and Civil War History.” According to this work, Confederate soldiers
were not really brave and sacrificing, nor were they usually
outnumbered; there were no real issues other than slavery; there was
nothing to the Southern constitutional position or Southern complaints
of economic and cultural aggression; Lee was not a great general (he
lost didn’t he); the Southern people did not really support the
Confederacy but were only dupes of a few large slave-holders; Southern
women did not really support the Confederacy either but were in secret
rebellion against their domineering menfolk.

This idea involves a basic misuse of the concept of myth. History
that is not true is not a myth, it is simply false. A myth is neither
true nor false, it is art. All people conceive of their history to some
degree in a mythological way. A myth may not be precisely accurate in
detail but it sums up a truth imaginatively to facilitate its
understanding and its transmission over the generations. Pedants may
examine Magna Carta and tell us that it is really not much of a
beginning for democracy. They miss the grain of meaningful truth
contained in the traditional understanding. There is no history without
an element of art. Facts are necessary but in themselves amount to
little until arranged and given meaning. There is nothing wrong with
myths if they are substantially true and preserve a valuable cultural
inheritance.

The biggest American myth is that of Lincoln, which is untrue and pernicious.

For a long time, from the late 1800s through much of the 20th
century, Americans enjoyed a comforting myth about the war. North and
South agreed that it was a great tragedy, with good and bad on both
sides, that had fortunately resulted in a stronger, united country. This
myth was consecrated here in Gettysburg in the joint reunions of blue
and grey. Southerners pledged future allegiance to the U.S. and accepted
Lincoln as a good man who would not have allowed a harsh
Reconstruction.

Northerners accepted Confederate heroes as American
heroes. Army bases were named after Confederate generals, American
fighting men carried their Confederate flags to the far corners of the
world in World War II, and every Hollywood star at least once played an
admirable Confederate character. This was a good myth—a myth of
reconciliation and harmony that allowed the national memory to cope with
an immense and ugly event.

Those days are gone forever, though many of our SCV compatriots seem
to think that it is still the 1950s and have not realised that they live
in a world of Political Correctness (which is a polite name for
Cultural Marxism). Remember, this is not an argument over historical
interpretation. This is about who we are.

Victors write the history and the first prevailing interpretation of
any great event is that the winners were the good guys and the losers
the bad guys. With the passage of time and research by trained and
supposedly dispassionate historians a more complex and balanced picture
emerges. It is seen that the winners were not always angels and that the
losers actually had something to be said for their side.

This kind of revisionism has appeared in regard to the English Civil
War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and World War I,
among others. It governed the understanding of the Civil War for much of
the 20th century. But notice how the professional historians I am
talking about, the devotees of the Lost Cause Myth as explanation of The
War have absolutely reversed the progress toward a balanced historical
perspective. They have reverted to the primitive propaganda of the South
as guilty of all that is bad in history.

It was necessary for them to do this to support their political agenda, because the weight of facts is on our side.

There is a concerted effort underway by so-called professional
historians to deny and denigrate the extraordinary heroism and sacrifice
of the South in that war. I do not think they will get very far, as the
facts are overwhelmingly against them. But Southerners, in trying to be
good fellows and good Americans, have been a little too ready to accept
the notion that the war was a gentlemanly and relatively fair contest.
It was nothing of the sort. We give the Yankees much more credit than
they deserve.

So, they have broken the truce. There is an upside to this. We are
now free to tell the truth—and the truth in every case supports the good
name of the Confederate soldier. So, no more Mr. Nice Guy.

The Southern understanding of the Constitution was never refuted, and
it can’t be. It was simply crushed. Preserving the Union. You cannot
preserve the Union, or government of, by, and for the people, by a
massive military invasion that destroys the constitutional,
democratically elected governments of nearly half the states and
converts them into conquered provinces with puppet governments and their
citizens deprived of rights.

The most basic simple fact about the war is that it was a war of
invasion and conquest. Once you get clear on this basic fact, all other
truths tend to fall into place. This is no secret. It is plain in the
record. The Northern war party openly declared that it was a war of
conquest, to crush resistance to government, to promote a powerful
state, and to keep the South as a captive source of profits. People love
Lincoln’s pretty words because they put a happy face on a great crime.

The Lincoln fable. Those who complain about myths distorting our
understanding of history are the same people who adhere to the biggest
and most false and destructive myth there is— of Lincoln as a Christian
saint and humane democratic leader. Lincoln was a corporate lawyer and
clever political operative who always put himself and his party before
any other consideration. He brought on war because he thought it would
be a quick victory—the worst blunder in American history. Far from being
a military genius, his decisions repeatedly prolonged the war, which he
almost lost despite having four times the resources of the South. As
Tom DiLorenzo’s books, which have now been read by hundreds of thousands
of people, show, Lincoln’s first priority was always the economic
interest of Northern capitalists. Even most of those who supported
Lincoln despised and belittled him, cynically using his martyrdom for
their own purposes. Even his assassination takes on a different light
when you know how he sent Dahlgren to assassinate Jeff Davis. Certainly
Frederick Douglass was correct when he said that nothing Lincoln ever
did was determined by the interests of the slaves.

I believe that many Americans are rethinking Lincoln today because
they are dissatisfied with the all-powerful central government and see
where it was created.

Prisons, We now have enough research to be able to say for certain
that the Union prisons were as deadly as propaganda told us the
Confederate prisons were. There is a difference. The death rate in the
Southern camps was due to supply problems, especially lack of medicine
which Lincoln had made contraband, climate, and a large criminal element
preying on their fellows. Deaths in the Northern camps were inexcusable
and look very much to be the result of deliberate policy.

War Crimes. The Union conduct of the war was criminal from the very
beginning. The first troops across the Potomac looted and stole and the
crimes grew in scope and ferocity as the war went on.

The people of
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, howled in outrage when McCausland set their
town afire.

But many towns in the South, and innumerable homes,
churches, and schools, had already been looted and burned by the blue
soldiers. The civilians of Charleston endured a bombardment by some of
the heaviest artillery in existence for over two years. Our Confederate
ancestors were not guilty of anything like that. Even when Quantrill
made his retaliatory raid on Lawrence, no women were harmed. When
Sheridan visited Europe after the war he shocked the Prussian high
command with his attitude toward Southern civilians. In the run-up to
the Spanish War, the American press howled in outrage over the brutal
Spanish general “Butcher” Weyler—without mentioning that he had learned
his trade as an attache with Sherman.

But our Lost Cause Myth historians claim that total war was begun
when Stonewall Jackson advocated ruthless battle. So they equate
Jackson’s policy toward armed invading soldiers, which was never
implemented, with the Union’s deliberate, systematic war on women and
children and private property. Moral equivalency? I don’t think so. If
you haven’t yet done so, get Brian Cisco’s book on war crimes.

Recently a military historian, a supposed conservative, wrote that
the American people had rallied under the attack of 9/11 just as they
had rallied after Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbour. Think about it.

Two
massive sneak attacks by foreign enemies are equated with the reduction
of Fort Sumter as assaults on real Americans. Jeff Davis is put in the
dock with Tojo and Osama ben Laden. This historian’s ignorance and
malice is all too commonplace. Fort Sumter was preceded by a gentlemanly
warning, involved no civilians and no casualties, and the garrison were
not made prisoner allowed to go home with honour. And the only
deception involved was by the U.S. government. One wonders that
Southerners were allowed to fight alongside real Americans in World
Wars.

Furthermore, his assumption about the Northern public’s support of
the war is wrong. We are led to believe that the opposition consisted of
a few Copperhead conspirators and the New York City draft riots. Not
true. Northern opposition to the war was much more widespread, more
respectable, and more articulate than that. This is the biggest untold
story in American history. It was a Republican party war. Lincoln and
his supporters knew that their support was shaky and they saw
conspirators under their beds every night. We know about the suppression
of newspapers and arrest of dissidents by the government without any
due process. What does it tell us that detention of the Chief Justice
and of a former President were seriously considered? Dissent was
suppressed not only by the military but by violent mobs of Lincoln
supporters. Lincoln bought support with patronage on a scale previously
unimaginable in the United States.

I am told that in the main gentleman’s club in Philadelphia, Lincoln
supporters were made so uncomfortable that they resigned and formed
their own. Why did at least 300,000 Northerners avoid the draft in one
way or another? And why was it necessary to import an equal number of
foreigners to fill the ranks?

A serious argument can be made that Lincoln would have lost the
election in 1864 if it had not been conducted at bayonet point in the
border states and many other places. Further, the supposed “loyalty” of
the Border States has been greatly exaggerated. Why did all the Border
States including West Virginia start electing ex-Confederates to public
office as soon as the army left?

Here is something else to keep clearly in mind as a vital part of the
history of the South. It took 22 million Northerners four years of the
bloodiest warfare in American history to conquer 5 million Southerners.
We mobilized 90 per cent of our men and lost nearly a fourth. Not only
our self-government but more than half of our property was lost. The war
impoverished the South and enriched the politically connected in the
North. Foreign visitors to the North said that they could see little
sign that there was even a war going on.

Our fathers were true heroes. Man for man they marched harder, risked
their lives more often, fought better, endured impossible hardships,
and won many battles against superior forces. Let me give you a
comparative statistic. About 12,000 North Carolinians lost their lives
in World War II. If we project the loss of men in the Confederate War
against the larger population of World War II, it would require 300,000
North Carolina deaths to equal the State’s loss of men in the 1860s. No
other group of Americans has EVER made a sacrifice that remotely
approaches that of the South in its war for independence. Losses of the
North in that war and of the United States in any war are negligible in
comparison. Very late in the war, when defeat seemed inevitable,
Northern generals were complaining that the Confederate soldier refused
to give in and admit defeat, that Southern women remained indomitable in
spirit, and that Southerners from the richest to the poorest were
determined to keep on.

One of the popular themes among the South-hating historians today is
to dwell on evidence of disaffection in the Confederacy. Of course, as
in all human groups subjected to tremendous pressure, there were some
slackers. But the real story of the Confederacy is in how little
disaffection there was among a people subjected to such great
sacrifices. What would have been the morale of the North if it had
suffered a comparable extent of occupation, devastation and death as the
South had by 1863, instead of enjoying a quiet and prosperous
homefront. Imagine New York (instead of New Orleans) and Chicago
(instead of Memphis and Nashville) occupied. Imagine Cleveland and
Buffalo (instead of Charleston and Mobile) blockaded and under siege.
Imagine Pennsylvania and Ohio (instead of Virginia and Tennessee)
overrun and ravaged. Imagine Washington (instead of Richmond) under
constant attack. Imagine privation and sacrifice instead of prosperity
the order of the day everywhere, thousands of civilians refugees, and
nearly the whole male citizen population under arms. What would the
Northern morale have been in 1863? Under such conditions the Southern
people remained overwhelmingly game.

We are too quick to be generous in our accounts of the war, and thus
detract from the honour due our forefathers. One example, the great
Union victory at Gettysburg. Some victory! Lee’s army maneuvered freely
on enemy territory for several weeks, even though the nearest Union army
outnumbered him greatly and there were several other sizable Union
armies within a few days’ march. The Confederate army spent three days
attacking a much larger force on its home territory and barely failed of
victory. Then we stopped attacking and went home. Lee’s army trekked
back to the Potomac with vast herds of cattle and hogs, a 50-mile long
wagon train, prisoners, and wounded, in knee deep mud without any
serious harm from the larger, supposedly victorious, army. and remained
an undefeatable fighting force for more than a year longer. Some Union
victory.

Are Grant and Sherman great generals? A great general is one who wins
victory by skill, with economy of force. What kind of people regard
Sherman’s nearly unopposed March of destruction against a civilian
population as a great military feat and something for a nation to be
proud of?

Another bit of the Gettysburg story. Something like 10,000 black men,
bond and free, accompanied the Confederate army to Pennsylvania—and
back. The British observer Col. Fremantle observed one of these men
marching a Yankee prisoner to the rear. He wondered what the
abolitionists in London would think if they saw that.

Finally, as your patience is almost totally exhausted, we come to
slavery and the noble crusade to free the suffering black people. How
can the war be “about” slavery when the government formally declares
that it is not fighting to free the slaves but to preserve a nation?

And it would seem that the vast majority of Northern soldiers doing the
fighting agreed. Certainly no Confederate thought he was fighting just
to preserve slavery. In fact, at the end of the war many Southerners
would have willingly given up slavery to secure independence.

Lincoln made a pretty speech about how all men were entitled to the
fruits of their own labour. But what does this mean when a black person
who becomes free in Kentucky is forbidden by law to even live Illinois?
In such circumstances Lincoln’s statement is morally irresponsible.
Especially since he also said that he did not know what to do about
slavery even if he had the power and the only solution he seriously
considered was to send the black people somewhere else to exercise their
God-given freedom.

I know a descendant of a Confederate soldier whose ancestor, a
Methodist minister from Pennsylvania, taught a school for free black
children in Springfield, Illinois. He was literally driven out of
Springfield and went to Tennessee where he was hospitably welcomed and
became a devoted Confederate.

Any way, Lincoln’s party did not dwell on the fact that slavery was
bad, they dwelled on the badness of slaveholders who blocked the
economic progress of the North. Lincoln’s platform did not call for an
end to slavery but rather demanded that the territories be kept for
white people only. A restriction on slavery which did not free a single
person.

Any benefits that may have accrued to the black population of America
from the war were incidental to the interests of the ruling elements of
the North. There is no treasury of righteousness there.

Overwhelmingly,
the Yankees despised and used the black people. The North never did
anything before, during, or after the war for the primary purpose of
helping the black people.

One of the bad historians that I have described whines that somehow,
even though he and other brilliant experts have declared the truth over
and over, yet people still continue to admire the Confederacy. Why they
still write novels and songs about Lee, and even about his horse! Why
doesn’t anybody write about Grant and his men like that? It must be
because so many of us poor deluded fools still believe in that Lost
Cause.

Here is our great advantage. Our Confederate ancestors are truly
admirable, and decent people all over the world know it. We need to
defend them. I hope you will join us in the counter-attack.

Remembrance

Winners: Navy Cross Nguyen Van Kiet & MOH Thomas R. Norris This week’s Medal of Honor hero is one of a handful of Navy SEALs awarded the MOH in the Vietnam War. Norris snuck behind enemy lines with a South Vietnamese Navy petty officer rescued two downed pilots in 1972–when most of our resources had been pulled from the country. Interesting to note that later year, Norris was himself rescued by another SEAL Michael E. Thornton.More @ Medal of Honor Roll Call

Follow by Email

Counter

Core Creek Militia

==============================My sixth great grandfather, his wife, and five of his six children were killed in battle with the Tuscarora Indians at Core Creek, NC.

The Seven Blackbirds

==============================My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved his unit's flag after being wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He was also at Kingston (Kinston), Wilmington, Charleston, Two Sisters and Augusta. He was at the defeat at Brier Creek and also Bee Creek.

Requiem Aeternam -
Eternal Rest Grant unto Them
==============================
My second great grandfather was killed in action on May 3, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
=============================
My great grandfather and great uncle knew all the men in the "Civil War Requiem" video as they were part of the 53rd NC which was the sole unit defending Fort Mahone. (Fort Mahone was named "Fort Damnation" by the Yankees) *Handpicked men of the 53rd (My great grandfather was one of these) made the final, night assault at Petersburg in an attempt to break Grant's line. This was against Fort Stedman which was a few miles to the slight northeast. They initially succeeded, but reinforcements drove them back. This video is made from photographs which were taken the day after the 53rd evacuated the lines the night before to begin the retreat to Appomattox. I have many more pictures taken by the same photographer, one of these shows a 14 year old boy and the other is the famous picture of the blond, handsome soldier with his musket.
===========================
*General Gordon promised the men a gold medal and 30 days leave if they accomplished their task and many years after the War my great grandfather wrote General Gordon, who was then governor of Georgia about this incident. They exchanged several letters which I have framed. See first link below.
===========================
*The Attack On Fort Stedman
============================
"His Colored Friends"
============================
Lee's Surrender
=============================
My Black NC Kinfolks
============================
Punished For Being Caught!

Great Grandfather Koonce

He was a drummer boy in the WBTS, survived the War only to die a few years later. He was caught in an ice storm on his way home, but instead of seeking shelter, continued on his horse until the end. His clothes had to be cut off and he died a few days later.